Republicans haven't abandoned extreme positions on immigration. They've just transferred controversial proposals to the state level.

ByDaniel AltschulerMarch 9, 2011

Amherst, Mass. — As the immigration debate continues, Americans need to ask themselves: How do we feel about creating a permanent group of millions of second-class citizens in this country? Because, listening to Republican immigration proposals these days, it seems that this is precisely what the some key members of the GOP want to do.

Think I’m exaggerating? Keep reading.

Since taking over the House of Representatives in January, Republicans in Congress have tried to hide the nasty underbelly of many of their immigration positions by shifting the battle away from the Capitol. They haven't abandoned extreme positions – they have merely transferred their most controversial proposals from the national to the state and local levels. If even the Republicans once touted as “moderates” cannot pull their party back from the precipice, the country will face the prospect of proposed immigration legislation that would officially shut the door on a mostly Latino under-class.

In short, Sen. Hutchison’s proposal would spare DREAM youths from deportation, but wouldn’t grant them a path to citizenship. This, in effect, would convert them into permanent second-class citizens, without the right to vote. If adopted, Hutchison’s proposal would portend a neo-segregationist era: We would allow children raised in this country to remain here indefinitely, but deny them the rights that we guarantee to their schoolmates.

Moreover, if the experience of “guest workers” in this country is any guide, the permanent non-citizens that Hutchison envisions would remain more vulnerable to discrimination, the violation of labor rights, physical and sexual abuse, and threats of future deportation. Democracies, by their very nature, are designed to serve those who have a voice and vote – citizens – in their representative structure. Therefore, political systems like ours are usually bad at protecting the rights and addressing the needs of disenfranchised residents. It’s fair to expect that the fate of non-citizen permanent “visitors” in the US would be dismal indeed.

Remarkably, Hutchison remains far from the most restrictionist Republican in Congress. In fact, DREAM supporters targeted her with protests and hunger strikes in 2010 because she had previously supported the bill; they genuinely thought they could convince her. And Hutchison’s recommendation for revising the DREAM Act is not an anomaly, but instead similar to – or even less radical than – ideas floated by various Republicans since DREAM’s December defeat.

GOP has changed tactics, but not views

Upon assuming control of the House of Representatives, Republicans have gotten wise to the tide of public opinion against some of their most extreme voices on immigration. But they haven’t abandoned their stance on immigration; they’ve just changed their tactics.

On the House floor in 2006, Rep. King constructed a model wall he proposed putting along the southern border, with an electrified wire at the top “to provide a disincentive for people to climb over the top.” He concluded, “We do this with livestock all the time” – a comment that has been interpreted as his likening undocumented immigrants to cattle. And more recently, in 2010, King said law enforcement officers could profile undocumented immigrants by “the type of grooming that they might have,” among other “common sense indicators.”

By preventing King from becoming sub-committee chair, Republicans have also tabled his plan to put the proposed repeal of "birthright citizenship" in the national spotlight. Instead, House Judiciary Committee chairman Lamar Smith (R) of Texas – whose immigration policy positions, if not his rhetoric, appear quite similar to King’s – has chosen to focus on workplace enforcement.

They would do so by creating a new category of “state citizen,” in addition to “national citizen,” by which these states could then deprive these children of “state citizenship.” They have also promoted the idea of issuing different birth certificates to the children of undocumented parents, which would mark them as non-citizens.

Though the birthright citizenship proposals have (rightfully) proven more controversial, Senator Hutchison’s idea would still do something similar: create a permanent under-class of non-citizen immigrants. For DREAM students, as for future children of undocumented immigrants, this country would be all they know, their true home. But Republican lawmakers ignore that fact, and instead propose treating these youths as indefinite visitors who will never attain the rights that, politicians never tire of telling us, make America a light unto the world.

With some luck, enlightened self-interest could push GOP leaders to adopt a more sensible and compassionate stance on immigration. But the “revised” DREAM proposal from Hutchison and attacks on birthright citizenship by Republican state lawmakers augur poorly for such a shift.

Daniel Altschuler is a Copeland Fellow at Amherst College and has written extensively on immigration politics.